1 - Salita v.

Magtolis

Petitioner: Joselita Salita

Respondent: Hon. Delilah Magtolis as RTC Judge of QC and Erwin Espinosa

Facts:
Erwin Espinosa and Joselita Salita were married at the Roman Catholic Church in Ermita, Manila. A year later, their union
turned sour. They separated in fact. Subsequently, Erwin sued for annulment on the ground of Joselita’s psychological
incapacity which incapacity existed at the time of the marriage although the same became manifest only thereafter.
Dissatisfied with the allegation in the petition, Joselita moved for a bill of particulars which the trial court granted.
Subsequently, in his Bill of Particulars, Edwin specified that at the time of their marriage, Joselita was psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of their marriage in that she was unable to understand and
accept the demands made by his profession — that of a newly qualified Doctor of Medicine — upon his time and efforts so
that she frequently complained of his lack of attention to her even to her mother, whose intervention caused petitioner to
lose his job.
Still petitioner was not contented with the Bill of Particulars. She insists that the allegations in the Bill of Particulars
constitute a legal conclusion, not an averment of ultimate facts, and fail to point out the specific essential marital
obligations she allegedly was not able to perform, and thus render the Bill of Particulars insufficient if not irrelevant to
her husband’s cause of action. She rationalizes that her insistence on the specification of her particular conduct or
behavior with the corresponding circumstances of time, place and person does not call for information on evidentiary
matters because without these details she cannot adequately and intelligently prepare her answer to the petition.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the allegations in the petition for annulment of marriage and the subsequent bill of particulars filed in
amplification of the petition is sufficient.

HELD:
Ultimate facts are important and substantial facts which either directly from the basis of the primary right and duty, or
which directly make up the wrongful acts or omission of the defendant. It refers to acts which the evidence on trial will
prove, and not the evidence which will be required to prove the existence of those facts. The Supreme Court ruled that on
the basis of the allegations, it is evident that petitioner can already prepare her responsive pleading or for trial. Private
respondent has already alleged that petitioner was unable to understand and accept the demands made by his profession.
To demand for more details would indeed be asking for information on evidentiary facts — facts necessary to prove
essential or ultimate facts. The additional facts called for by petitioner regarding her particular acts or omissions would
be evidentiary, and to obtain evidentiary matters is not the function of a motion for bill of particulars.
WHEREFORE, there being no reversible error, the instant petition is DENIED and the questioned Resolution of
respondent Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.